<7 

University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


SPEEC  H 


OF 


MR,  STEWART,  OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 


ON    THE 


THREE  MILLION  APPROPRIATION  BILL, 


AND    THE 


MEXICAN  WAR. 


Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  U.  S.,  Feb.  13,  1847. 


WASHINGTON: 

J.    &    G.    S.    GIDEON,    POINTERS 

1847. 


:    '  /        ,' 


SPEECH. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union  on  the  Three  Million 
Appropriation  bill — 

Mr.  STEWART  said  he  proposed,  in  the  first  place,  to  inquire  briefly  into 
the  true  purposes  and  objects  of  this  bill ;  for  it  seemed  to  him  that,  in  the 
course  of  the  present  debate,  almost  every  thing  else  had  been  discussed  but  the 
bill  itself.  This  bill  grants  the  President  what  he  demands,  three  millions  of 
dollars  to  make  a  treaty  with  Mexico,  and  authorizes  him  to  pay  the  money  be 
fore  the  treaty  is  submitted  to  or  approved  by  the  Senate  ;  and  the  Senate  are 
thus  required  to  ratify  this  treaty  before  they  see  it,  or  know  what  it  is.  Is 
it  not  in  effect  a  ratification  of  the  treaty  beforehand  ?  How  can  the  Sen 
ate  object  to  the  treaty,  no  matter  what  is  its  character  or  provisions,  after 
having  authorized  the  payment  of  the  three  millions  in  advance  ?  If  they 
do,  the  money  will  be  lost,  and  lost  by  their  act,  in  authorizing  its  pre 
vious  payment.  He  contended,  therefore,  that  any  treaty  which  the  President 
might  choose  to  make  for  the  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory,  would  in  effect 
be  at  once  binding  upon  this  Government.  Let  this  bill  once  be  passed,  and  I 
say  that  neither  this  House,  nor  the  Senate,  can,  with  any  consistency,  object  to 
the  treaty.  The  appropriating  power  is  the  only  control  this  House  can  exert 
over  the  Executive  in  the  making  and  executing  of  treaties.  This  it  is  proposed 
to  exercise  beforehand,  and  thus  surrender  to  the  President  the  whole  control  of 
the  treaty-making  power.  By  this  act  we  tie  our  hands  and  seal  our  lips.  We 
have  no  right  to  object  to  any  thing  the  President  may  do,  and  this  is  manifestly 
the  object  and  design  of  this  bill.  In  originating  the  present  war  without  con 
sulting  Congress,  then  in  session,  the  whole  war  power  of  this  Government  has 
been  practically  usurped  by  the  President.  He  has  carried  it  out  in  fact.  He 
has  made  war  while  Congress  was  in  session,  without  submitting  the  causes  to 
their  consideration,  or  asking  or  obtaining  their  concurrence.  He  did  not  ask 
us  to  declare  war,  but  ordered  the  army  to  advance  and  biing  on  the  war,  and 
then  called  upon  us  to  "  recognise  its  existence,"  and  appropriate  money  and 
men  for  its  prosecution.  Having  thus  seized  upon  the  war-making  power,  he 
now  wants  us  to  surrender  to  him  the  treaty-making  power  also.  As  he  began 
the  war  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  so  now  he  wants  the  means  of  making 
a  peace  without  the  aid  or  concurrence  of  either  the  House  or  the  Senate. 

By  this  law  we  authorize  him  to  pay  Santa  Anna,  or  any  body  else,  three  mil 
lions  to  purchase  a  peace,  which  he  has  failed  to  conquer.  And,  if  the  Senate  shall 
refuse  to  ratify  it,  the  three  millions  are  gone  !  This  bill  empowers  the  President  to 
make  a  treaty  when,  how,  and  with  whom  he  pleases.  If  he  shall  be  pleased  to 
make  a  treaty  exchanging  Oregon  for  California,  to  give  northern  for  southern  terri- 


•  M  v 

4 

lory,  to  surrender  free  territory  for  the  acquisition  of  slave  territory,  and  give  these 
three  millions  10  boot  as  earnest  money,  what  right  has  the  Senate  to  object  ?  If 
they  do,  may  not  the  President  say  "  what,  do  you  object  to  the  treaty?  Did  you 
not  authorize  me  by  law  to  make  a  treaty  that  should  put  an  end  to  this  war, 
and  did  you  not  give  me  three  millions  to  do  it  ?  I  made  the  treaty;  Mexico 
has  ratified  it.  I  have  paid  her  the  three  millions,  and  she  has  paid  it  to  her 
army  ;  and  now,  if  you  refuse  to  ratify  it,  the  money  is  a  dead  loss,  and  worse," 
it  has  gone  to  "  aid  and  comfort  the  enemy." 

To  obviate  this  objection,  I  have  moved  an  amendment  in  the  llth  line  of  the 
3d  section  of  the  bill,  inserting  after  "  ratified  by  Mexico,"  the  words  "  and  the 
United  States."  This  will,  if  adopted,  keep  the  money  in  our  own  hands  till  the 
treaty  has  been  approved  by  the  Senate.  But,  if  the  amendment  be  adopted,  the 
real  intent  and  object  of  this  bill  will  be  defeated.  For  if  you  postpone,  as 
you  ought  clearly  to  do,  the  payment  of  the  money  till  the  treaty  is  ratified  by 
the  Senate,  what  is  the  use  of  passing  this  bill?  Can't  Congress  appropriate 
the  money  simultaneously,  with  the  approval  and  ratification  of  the  treaty  ?  Cer 
tainly. 

My  objection  to  this  bill  is  this,  that,  having  surrendered  the  war  power  to  th 
President — having  given  up  to  him  both  the  purse  and  the  sword,  I  cannot  con 
sent,  by  this  bill,  to  surrender  to  him  the  treaty-making  power  also,  thus  en 
abling  him  to  impose  on  Congress  and  the  country  just  such  a  treaty  as  suits 
himself.  Is  this  to  be  tolerated  ?  I  trust  not,  unless  it  is  resolved  by  the  ma 
jority  here  to  convert  this  free  Government  into  a  despotism,  and  sacrifice  our 
liberties  on  the  altar  of  arbitrary  power. 

1  have  voted,  and  I  intend  to  vote,  for  all  the  men,  money,  and  measures,  that 
may  be  necessary,  in  my  judgment,  to  bring  this  unhappy  war  to  a  speedy  and 
an  honorable  conclusion  ;  but  this  bill  goes  too  far.  I  am  ready  to  do  whatever 
is  proper  and  necessary  to  strengthen  ihe  Executive  arm  in  maintaining  the 
honor  and  interests  of  the  country;  but  this  bill  proposes  a  surrender  of  more 
power  into  the  hands  of  the  Executive  than  I  can  consent  to  grant.  So  much  for 
the  bill  and  its  objects. 

And  now,  in  regard  to  this  Wilmot  proviso.  What  is  it?  It  is  a  proposition: 
to  prohibit  the  extension  of  slavery  in  the  new  territory  we  may  acquire  with 
these  three  millions  of  dollars,  and  which  is  now  free  territory.  Where  can  be 
the  objection  to  an  object  like  this  ?  Gentlemen  say  that  this  is  not  the  time  ; 
that  this  is  not  the  place  ;  that  it  is  a  mere  abstraction,  and  will  have  no  practi 
cal  operation.  But  I  say  it  will  have  a  practical  and  most  salutary  operation,  as 
I  shall  show  directly.  But  even  if  it  were  an  abstraction,  if  it  were  merely  a 
declaratory  resolution,  saying  that  Congress  is  in  favor  of  liberty  and  opposed  to 
slavery,  how  would  gentlemen  vote  ?  Shall  this  American  Congress,  which 
claims  to  represent  the  freest  people  on  earth,  dwelling  in  the  home,  ihe  citadel, 
the  cherished  land  of  liberty,  vote  that  we  are  in  favor  of  slavery  ?  Let  the 
South  so  vote,  if  they  choose;  he  did  not  blame  southern  men  for  maintaining 
their  own  side  of  the  question  ;  but  let  northern  men  beware.  For  his  own 
part,  while  he  would  faithfully  abide  by  all  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,, 
while  he  would  not  invade,  in  the  slighest  degree,  any  of  the  constitutional  rights 
of  the  South,  he  would  never  extend,  by  any  vote  of  his,  slavery  over  one  foot 
of  territory  now  free.  I  will,  then,  vote  for  this  proviso,  not  only  because  I 
think  it  right  in  itself,  but  because  I  believe  it  will  have  a  more  powerful 
effect  in  restoring-  peace  than  any  other  measure  that  can  be  adopted — peace 
abroad  and  peace  *at  home.  I  beg  gentlemen  to  recollect  that  the  acquisition 


of  territory  was  the  original  design,  and  is  now  the  declared  object  and  purpose, 
of  this  war.  The  acquisition  of  New  Mexico  and  California  is,  we  are  now  told 
on  all  sides,  the  object  of  this  appropriation.  It  was  for  this  purpose  that  James 
K.  Polk  brought  the  war  on  in  the  first  instance.  It  was  a  scheme,  a  notable 
scheme,  for  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  conquest;  but  that  object  was  to  be 
concealed,  and  therefore  he  began  the  war  without  saying  a  word  to  Congress 
about  it.  He  feared  they  would  not  sanction  his  scheme,  and  bring  on  a  war  for 
such  a  purpose.  Here  was  the  great  error  committed  by  the  President,  "a  blunder 
worse  than  a  crime."  When  Mexico  refused  to  recognise  our  minister,  the  Presi 
dent  instead  of  sending  his  army  to  the  Rio  Grande  to  bring  on  the  war,  should 
have  sent  his  message  to  Congress,  setting  forth  the  causes,  and  recommending, 
if  he  chose,  a  declaration  of  war;  and  then,  if  Congress  had  declared  war,  it 
would  have  been  constitutionally  declared  by  the  people's  representatives,  and 
they  would  have  cheerfully  sustained  it.  But,  instead  of  adopting  this  course, 
though  Congress  was  in  session  at  the  time,  he  ordered  his  army  to  march  from 
Corpus  Christi  (where  he  himself  says  it  had  been  posted  for  more  than  six 
months,  without  objection  or  molestation  from  Mexico)  to  the  Rio  Grande,  into 
the  disputed  territory,  directly  opposite  to  Matamoras,  a  Mexican  town,  block 
ading  the  river,  cutting  oft'  their  supplies,  and  erecting  a  battery  within  gunshot 
of  the  city  itself — an  act  of  war,  and  producing  war  as  a  necessary  and  inevitable 
consequence.  It  did  produce  war.  Battles  were  fought.  Our  brave  little  army 
was  cut  off  from  its  supplies ;  and,  when  his  plot  had  thus  succeeded,  then  he 
called  on  us  "  to  recognise  the  existence  of  the  war,"  and  provide  men  and 
money  for  its  prosecution.  And  why  did  he  not  send  us  his  message,  and  leave 
it  to  us  to  judge  whether  the  nation  had  good,  cause  of  war  or  not?  Because  he 
was  afraid  to  trust  the  House  with  the  question.  He  knew  that  it  never  would 
sanction  a  war  for  the  acquisition  of  territory  ;  and  that  was  the  reason  why  he 
took  it  upon  him  to  send  his  army  to  bully  Mexico  into  a  war. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Tennessee,  here  interposed  to  inquire,  whether  war  had  not 
been  declared  against  us  by  Mexico  as  early  as  April  ? 

Mr.  S.  No,  sir,  no  ;  she  did  not.  No  declaration  of  war  was  ever  made  by 
Mexico  against  the  United  States,  or  by  the  United  States  against  Mexico.  It 
is  an  Executive  war — a  war  brought  on  by  your  President,  without  a  declara 
tion  of  war  on  either  side.  Mexico,  wishing  to  avoid  hostilities,  sent,  by  her 
General  in  command,  a  notice  to  our  commander  (General  Taylor)  not  to  cross  the 
Colorado,  otherwise  they  would  regard  it  as  an  act  of  war,  and  an  invasion  of  Mex 
ico.  They  were  not  only  willing  to  leave  our  army  undisturbed  at  Corpus  Christi, 
but  were  willing  we  should  march  to  the  Colorado  without  resistance.  No,  sir,  the 
Mexican  Congress  never  declared  war  against  us,  and  the  President  did  not  give  us 
the  chance  to  declare  war  against  them.  I  tell  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee, 
(Mr.  MARTIN,)  who  represents  Mr.  Polk  on  this  floor,  that  this  is  a  war  made  by 
his  President,  and,  for  all  the  consequences  of  which  he  is  responsible  to,  arid 
will  be  held  responsible  by,  the  American  people.  Peace  is  the  true  policy  of 
this  country  ;  war,  and  especially  wars  of  conquest  and  invasion,  are  dangerous 
to  the  character,  integrity,  and  best  interests  of  this  Union.  As  a  friend  of 
peace,  present  and  prospective,  I  am  in  favor  of  this  proviso.  The  object 
o  ithis  war  being  the  acquisition  of  southern  territory,  as  long  as  there  is  a 
hope  of  accomplishing  this  object,  there  will  be  no  peace.  Put  an  end  to  this 
hope,  and  you  at  once  put  an  end  to  the  war,  by  defeating  its  object.  The  mo 
ment  the  President  finds  this  proviso  accompanying  this  grant  of  money,  he 
will  be  for  making  peace  ;  and  so  will  all  the  South.  They  want  no  restricted 
territory.  If  the  restriction  is  imposed,  and  the  territory  acquired  is  to  be  free., 


6 

from  that  moment  the  President  would  pay  Mexico  to  keep  her  territory,  ra 
ther  than  bring  it  in  on  such  conditions.  1  am  for  the  proviso,  therefore,  because 
it  will  biing  us  peace.  Impose  this  restriction,  and  Mr.  Polk  will  say  he  wants 
no  territory — the  South  will  say  they  want  none  ;  we  say,  agreed,  we  want 
none.  Then,  if  Mexico  is  to  lose  no  territory,  she  will  be  for  peace  ;  and  if  we 
are  to  acquire  none,  what  are  we  fighting  for  ?  Then,  impose  this  restriction, 
and  the  war  will  be  promptly  ended,  to  the  great  benefit  and  joy  of  both  Repub 
lics. 

But  this  restriction  would  not  only  terminate  the  war,  but  it  will  promote  peace 
at  home,  domestic  peace.  It  will  avoid  civil,  and  perhaps,  in  the  end,  servile 
wars. 

.The  acquisition  of  unrestricted  territory  will  be  an  "apple  of  discord"  to  the 
States  of  this   Union.     New  questions  will  at  once  spring  up — new  lines  of 
party  distinction  will  be  drawn,  and  the  old  ones  obliterated.     We  shall  be  no 
longer  divided  as  Whigs  and  Democrats.     As  long  as  our  party  distinctions  are 
founded  on  abstract  principles,  and  measures  of  internal  policy,  they  never  will 
divide  this  Union — never  ;  but  as  soon  as  you  make  a  geographical  division — a 
free  party  and  a  slave  party,  a  northern  party  and  a  southern  party — you  at  once 
strike  a  fatal  blow  at  the  integrity  of  this  Union.     I  want  to  shun  all  these  dan 
gers — dangers   which,  I  believe,  can  be  avoided  only  by  keeping  out  foreign 
territory.     But  the  President  tells  us,  in  his  Message,  that  this  war  was  not  com 
menced,  and  is  not  prosecuted,  for  conquest.    Sir,  I  am  sorry  he  has  said  so.     I 
am  sorry  for  the  credit  and  character  of  my  country ;  for  what  man  is  there  so 
blind  as  not  to  see  that  conquest  is   the  whole  and  sole  end  and  object  of  this 
war  ?     Whether  we  look  to  the  manner  of  its  commencement,  or  the  manner  of 
its  prosecution,  every  one  must  see  that  territory,  the  acquisition  of  territory, 
was  the  first  and  last,  the  cherished  and  darling  object  of  the  President.     But 
the  President  tells  us  that  Mexico  began  this  war;  that  she  struck  first ;  that  she 
invaded  our  territory,  and  "shed  American  blood  on  American  soil."     If  this  be 
true,  it  is  sufficient.     Then  why  go  back  twenty  years  to  give  what  the  Presi 
dent  calls  "a  history  of  the  causes  that  led  to  this  war."     Led  who  to  this  war? 
That  led  him  to  make  it  of  course.     Why  rake  up  and  cite,  in  order,  this  long 
string  of  old  grievances  and  causes  of  quarrel,  long  since  settled  by  treaty? 
Why  dwell  on  Mexican  outrages,  and  what  Mexico  owes  us  ?     She  has  acknow 
ledged  the  debt,  and  has  agreed  to  pay  it;  and  did  pay  as  long  as  she   had  the 
means.     But  will  war  bring  the  money?    Or  will  it  not  rather  destroy  both  the 
ability  and  disposition  of  Mexico  to  pay  ?     Suppose  a  man  living  in  Texas  or 
Florida  owes  Mr.  Polk,  not  $3,000,000,  but  $3,000  ;  he  sends  a  man  over  there 
to  collect  the  money.     The  man  acknowledges  the  debt,  but  says  he  can't  pay. 
Mr.  Polk  flies  in  a  passion,  and  says,  "I'll  make  him  pay."  He  hires  a  hundred 
men,  agrees   to  pay  them  $10  per  month,   gives   then/160  acres  of  land,  finds 
them  horses,  borrows  $50,000  to  pay  expenses,  and  away  he  goes.     The  man 
collects  his  neighbors,  they  have  a' fight;  Mr.   Polk,  with  the  loss  of  half  his 
men,  gains  a  glorious  victory  ;  he  burns  the  man's  barn  ;  he  sets  his  stacks  on 
fire  ;  destroys  his  cattle,  and  kills  his  wife  and  children  ;  and  what  is  the  result? 
Mr.  Polk  has  ruined  the  man,  and  ruined  himself;  the  debt  is  lost,  and  Mr. 
Polk's  property  is  sold  by  the  sheriff  to  pay  the  expenses  of  his  folly,  and  that 
is  the  end  of  it.     Such  a  course  would  be  just  as  reasonable  as  this  war  upon 
Mexico  to  collect  what  she  owes  us.     But  who  believes  Mr.  Polk  to  be  in  earn 
est  ?     Who  does  not  know  that  this  is  only  the  ostensible  motive,  the  pretext, 
for  the  war,  and  that  the  true,  the  real  object  is,  and  was   from  the  beginning,, 
lie  acquisition  of  territory  ? 


But  the  President  insists,  that  Mexico  struck  first.  Is  this  true  ?  If  so, 
that  is  enough  ;  why  assign  twenty  other  insufficient  reasons  for  this  war?  The 
course  of  the  President  puts  me  in  mind  of  a  case  of  outrageous  assault  and  bat 
tery  tried  in  the  West.  The  defendant's  counsel  admitted  the  charge,  but  under 
took  to  justify.  He  came  into  court  with  his  plea,  something  like  the  message 
in  length,  containing  twenty-four  distinct  grounds  of  defence.  To  the  terror  of 
the  court  he  opened  his  volume,  and  commenced  reading:  "If  the  court  please, 
our  first  ground  of  defence  is,  that  the  prosecutor  struck  first."  "  Stop,"  said 
the  court,  "  stop> — that's  enough — prove  that,  and  we  want  no  more."  "  Aye, 
but,"  said  the  lawyer,  "  unfortunately  for  my  client,  that's  just  what  we  can't 
prove!"  "  Then,  why  did  you  put  it  in?"  "To  save  appearances,  if  your 
honors  please."  Just  so  in  this  case — "'To  save  appearances,"  the  President 
says,  Mexico  "struck  first;"  but,  not  being  able  to  prove  it,  he  goes  back 
twenty-odd  years  to  give,  what  he  calls,  "a  history  of  the  causes  that  led  to 
the  war,"  instead  of  giving  the  true  causes  in  a  word,  by  saying,  "first,  the  an 
nexation  of  Texas;  second,  the  acquisition  of  California." 

But  gentlemen  dwell  much  upon  the  "glory"  of  this  war.  Glory! — is  there 
any  glory  to  be  got  by  the  conquest  of  these  miserable  demi-savage,  down-trod 
den,  and  distracted  Mexicans  ?  Is  it  glory  for  an  elephant  to  kill  an  ant,  or  a 
lion  to  murder  a  mouse  ?  Glory?  No,  sir;  that  won't  do.  There  would  be 
more  true  glory  in  exercising  generosity,  magnanimity,  and  forbearance  towards 
poor  Mexico,  than  in  killing  her  people,  and  robbing  her  of  her  territory.  A 
war  with  Mexico  can  be  glorious  in  no  event,  it  may  be  disgraceful ;  victory 
over  such  an  enemy  is  not  glorious,  while  defeat  would  be  the  deepest  disgrace. 
Individuals  have  acquired  and  may  acquire  glory  by  brilliant  achievements  and 
deeds  of  noble  daring,  but  national  glory  is  out  of  the  question. 

Now,  sir,  though  I  disapprove  of  this  war,  in  its  origin  and  in  its  objects ; 
though  I  condemn  both  the  manner  of  its  commencement  and  the  manner  of  its 
prosecution,  yet  I  have  voted  both  the  men  and  money  asked  for  by  the  Presi 
dent  to  bring  it  to  a  speedy  and  honorable  termination.  And  why  ?  Because 
we  had  no  escape.  The  President  had  plunged  us  into  the  war  without  our 
consent.  Our  brave  little  army  was  cut  off  from  its  supplies,  and  in  danger 
of  utter  destruction,  We  jwere  obliged  to  rescue  them  by  sending  speedy 
succor.  But  I  never  voted  to  prosecute  this  war  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring 
additional  territory  by  conquest.  No,  sir,  never.  If  we  shall  succeed  in  get 
ting  this  territory,  what  shall  we  do  with  it  ?  Shall  we  hold  it  by  military  oc 
cupation  ?  By  sending  an  army  there,  and  keeping  it  there  forever,  with  all  its 
appendages  and  oppressive  burdens  of  taxation,  crushing  the  people  of  this 
country  to  the  earth  ?  Or  shall  we  incorporate  it  into  the  Union  ?  And,  if  we 
do,  are  those  semi-barbarian,  half-blood,  negro,  and  mulatto  Mexicans  fit  for 
freedom  ?  Are  they  capable  of  being  free  ?  Can  you  force  them  to  be  free  ? 
No,  sir;  you  know  you  cannot.  But,  even  if  you  could,  have  you  any  right  to 
force  freedom  upon  these  unwilling  men  ?  Are  we  to  go  and  bring  them  in  by 
force — drag  these  resisting  people  into  our  Union  by  the  hair  of  their  head  ? 
But,  even  if  willing  to  come,  what  preparation  have  they  ?  Are  they  qualified 
to  exercise  the  rights  of  American  citizens  ?  But,  more  than  that,  they  are  in 
a  state  of  the  highest  exasperation  against  us.  Sir,  I  would  as  soon  bring  a  den 
of  exasperated  rattlesnakes  into  the  midst  of  my  family,  as  attempt  to  force 
these  treacherous  and  miserable  Mexicans  into  political  union  with  ourselves — 
unwilling  and  exasperated  as  they  are.  The  result  would  be  discord,  strife,  civil 
war,  and,  ultimately,  and  perhaps  at  no  distant  day,  the  dissolution  of  this  now 
happy  and  glorious  Union.  I  cannot  sanction  this  appropriation  for  another 


8 

reason.  To  do  so  would  be  to  sanction  the  doctrine  so  boldly  and  unblushingly 
avowed  here  by  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  over  the  way,  (Mr.  WICK,)  who 
says,  that  we  are  here  simply  to  give  the  Executive  what  he  wants;  and  that,  if 
we  are  not  willing  to  grant  it,  and  in  iheform  in  which  he  asks  it,  we  ought  to  go 
home,  and  let  the  people  send  here  those  who  are.  That  is  the  rule  he  prescribes 
for  himself  and  all  good  Democrats.  Yes,  that  is  the  doctrine  openly  preached  on 
this  floor — the  floor  of  an  American  Congress — by  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  who 
assumes  to  be  "Sir  Oracle" — the  official  whipper-in  of  the  Democratic  party — th~ 
grand  sheriff  and  head  constable,  set  up  and  authorized  to  bring  the  Democracy 
to  order.  And  has  it  come  to  this  ?  Is  this  your  modern  progressive  Demo 
cracy,  that  the  President  must  have  not  only  whatever  he  wants,  but  in  the  form 
he  wants  it  ?  The  purse  and  the  sword  he  already  has,  and  this  bill  adds  the 
treaty-making  power.  A  more  despicably  slavish  creed  never  was  taught  under 
the  dagger  and  the  cord  m  the  most  grinding  despotisms  that  ever  has  outraged 
the  rights  of  man.  What  does  it  make  of  the  representatives  of  a  free  people  ? 
The  poorest,  meanest,  most  sycophantic,  subservient,  and  crawling  slaves  that 
ever  licked  the  foot  of  arbitrary  power.  We  must  give  the  President  all  he  asks  ! 
Indeed  !  what  business,  then,  have  we  here  ?  Why  not  go  home,  and  save  ex 
pense  1  One  man  is  all  we  want.  And  yet  that  is  modern  Democracy,  pro 
mulgated  by  a  self-styled  political  philosopher,  who  prides  himself  greatly  on 
his  wisdom,  but  more  on  his  transcendental  Democracy.  This  is  not  Democ 
racy;  it  is  the  reverse  of  the  old  and  true  Democracy  to  which  I  belonged,  and 
still  belong ;  it  is  the  concentration  of  all  power  in  the  President ;  the  one-man 
power;  monarchy  in  fact,  and,  if  not  checked  and  rebuked  by  the  people,  will 
soon  be  monarchy  inform  as  well  as  in  fact.  But,  sir,  the  day  is  now  dawning 
in  the  East.  The  clouds  and  darkness  that  overshadow  us  are  fast  disappearing. 
The  decree  has  gone  forth.  The  time  is  at  hand  when  the  people  will  redeem 
themselves  from  the  doings  and  the  doctrines  of  this  destructive  Democracy. 

Sir,  I  here  venture  to  say,  that  if  James  K.  Polk,  when  he  came  into  power, 
had  set  himself  down,  in  Cabinet  council,  to  devise  a  system  of  measures  to 
destroy,  first,  his  country,  and  next,  his  party,  he  could  not  have  contrived  a  sys 
tem  better  calculated  to  achieve  the  object  than  the  one  lie  has  adopted  and  car 
ried  out. 

As  to  its  effects  upon  the  party,  look  at  the  scenes  of  this  morning-— look  at 
the  scenes  that  daily  surround  us — the  divisions,  dissentions,  quarrels,  and  fights, 
that  are  daily  occurring  on  this  floor,  between  the  belligerent  divisions  and  Regi 
ments  of  the  "  harmonious  Democracy."  Ask  the  Democrats  from  Pennsyl 
vania,  New  York,  and  Ohio,  what  turned  them  out  last  fall,  and  they  will  tell 
you,  and  tell  you  truly,  "  it  was  Polk  and  his  policy"  that  done  it.  As  to  its 
effects  upon  the  country,  look  at  its  condition  when  he  came  into  power,  and 
look  at  it  now.  Who  could  have  believed  that  such  a  change  could  have  been 
effected  in  so  short  a  time  ?  Then  the  country  was  in  the  enjoyment  of  peace 
and  prosperity,  already  both  are  destroyed.  Then  the  national  industry  was 
protected  and  prosperous,  and  the  revenue  abundant  under  the  tariff  of  '42;  now 
our  national  industry  and  our  revenue  have  been  both  put  down  together  by  the 
infamous  British  tariff  of  '46.  True,  sir,  Providence  has,  to  some  extent,  coun 
teracted  the  destructive  effects  of  the  Polk  policy,  by  visiting  Europe  with  a 
famine,  a  failure  of  the  potato  crop  in  Ireland,  and  of  the  wheat  crop  throughout 
Europe,  while  we  have  been  blessed  with  an  unusual,  a  superabundant  crop,  to 
supply  this  deficiency.  This  has  greatly  increased  our  imports,  and  sustained, 
to  some  extent,  the  revenue  ;  but  this  will  be  temporary.  Yet,  notwithstanding 
all  these  favorable  circumstances,  look  at  one  great  and  undeniable  fact:  when 


*s  down  to  $98.  This  fact  speaks  volumes  as  to  the  disastrous  effects  of  his 
Mr.  Polk  came  into  power  the  United  States  stock  stood  $116  for  $100  ;  now  it 
policy  on  the  public  credit,  at  home  and  abroad.  Polk  found  the  country  with  a 
sound  currency,  now  we  have  the  Subtreasury  and  Treasury  note  bills.  The  one 
says  we  will  take  nothing  but  specie,  the  other  says  we  will  pay  nothing  but 
paper.  Treasury  notes  are  in  fact  the  paper  issues  of  a  suspended  non-specie 
paying  bank.  It  is  a  national  bank  without  specie  in  its  vaults — it  is  this,  and 
nothing  else. 

The  Subtreasury  and  Treasury  notes  are  inseparable;  they  have  always  come 
and  went  together.  They  came  in  with  Van  Buren,  and  they  went  out  with 
Van  Buren.  They  have  come  in  with  Polk  and  they  will  go  out  with  Polk.  It 
is  a  contrivance  to  get  money  after  the  Treasury  is  exhausted,  to  feast  and  fatten 
the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  hungry  partizans  with  offices  and  salaries,  good 
contracts  and  jobs,  at  the  expense  of  the  honest,  hard  working,  and  tax-paying 
farmers  and  laborers  of  the  country;  and,  to  cover  their  extravagance,  they  get  up 
n  war,  no  matter  with  whom,  what  for,  or  how.  Van  Buren  made  a  war  some 
thing  like  the  present  in  its  origin  and  objects,  to  rob  a  few  Indians  in  Florida  of 
their  land,  because  they  would  not  sell  it  at  his  price  ;  and  this  war  has  cost  the 
people  more  than  forty  millions  of  dollars,  and  we  are  now  supporting  these  In 
dians  beyond  the  Mississippi  at  an  expense  of  nearly  a  million  a  year.  Well, 
Mr.  Polk,  following  in  the  footsteps  of  his  illustrious  predecessor,  has  made 
war  upon  Mexico,  with  the  same  object  in  view,  to  acquire  territory  and  give 
fat  jobs,  contracts,  and  offices  to  his  partizans,  at  the  expense  of  the  people ;  but 
when,  where,  and  how,  the  Polk  war  is  to  end,  God  only  knows.  What  it  is  to 
cost  in  blood  and  treasure,  no  one  can  tell.  One  thing,  however,  we  do  know, 
the  nation  is  being  involved  in  debt  at  the  rate  of  forty  or  fifty  millions  a  year, 
without  any  measure  of  revenue  proposed  to  discharge  the  debt,  or  even  to  pay 
the  interest.  Why  not  meet  the  crisis  you  have  created  like  men?  Why 
shrink  and  skulk  from  the  responsibility?  Two  months  after  the  declaration  of 
the  war  against  Great  Britain,  Congress  promptly,  and  without  hesitation,  passed 
an  act  to  double  the  duties  on  foreign  goods,  and  imposed  shortly  afterwards  in 
ternal  duties  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  war  ;  but  now  nothing  can  be  done  but 
pass  enormous  appropriation  bills,  issue  Treasury  notes,  and  divide  the  proceeds 
among  greedy  partizans,  who  stand  with  open  mouths  to  seize  the  bread  and 
bones  distributed  at  the  White  House.  The  democratic  plan  seems  to  be  to 
pass  appropriation  bills,  take  the  money,  and  leave  the  Whigs  to  foot  the  bill  as 
in  1840.  The  only  legacy  they  will  leave  us  when  they  die  will  be  their  debts, 
with  the  privilege  of  imposing  taxes  to  pay  them.  The  Democrats,  it  seems, 
have  discovered  Mr.  Law's  plan  of  getting  clear  of  taxation.  Some  years  ago, 
when  taxes  were  very  high  in  this  city,  my  old  friend  Thomas  Law,  (brother  of 
Lord  Ellenborough,)  who  was  very  heavily  taxed  for  unproductive  property  on 
Capitol  Hill,  one  day  gave  out  that  he  had  discovered  a  plan  to  get  rid  of  his 
taxes;  his  neighbors,  who  had  a  fellow-feeling  on  this  subject,  flocked  in  to  find  out 
what  his  plan  was  ;  after  a  great  deal  of  importunity,  the  old  gentleman  at  last 
said,  "well  friends,  if  you  must  know,  I  am  going  to  die" 

Now,  the  Democrats  have  found  out  that  they  are  going  to  die  soon,  and  they 
are  determined  to  get  all  they  can  while  their  time  lasts,  and  leave  the  Whigs  to 
impose  the  taxes,  and  to  pay  them. 

But  we  were  told  the  other  day,  that  the  Democratic  party  had  carried  out  all 
its  measures,  and  the  results  would  contrast  favorably  with  those  of  the  Whigs. 
I  am  glad  to  hear  this  admission.  They  confess  that  their  system  of  measures 
is  in  full  ami  successful  operation,  and  we  all  can  see  the  beautiful  results*  I 


10 

-will  avail  myself  of  the  occasion  which  is  thus  presented  to  me,  and  will  follow 
out  the,  contrast  a  little  farther. 

But  I  must  go  back  a  little,  and  I  mean  to  inquire  what  has  been  the  effect  of 
Whig  policy  on  the  prosperity,  the  character,  and  the  credit  of  the  country;  and 
then  what  has  been  the  result  of  the  opposite  ? 

In  this  inquiry,  I  shall  deal  with  facts — I  mean  to  speak  from  the  record,  and 
I  challenge  contradiction.  Then  I  state,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  average  ex 
penditures  of  the  Government,  during  the  four  years  of  Mr.  Adam's  administra 
tion,  was  but  twelve  millions  and  a  half  a  year,  and  part  of  this  was  to  cover 
the  expenses  of  an  extensive  system  of  internal  improvements;  and  during  the 
same  four  years,  there  were  paid  forty-five  millions  of  the  public  debt,  out  of 
twenty-five  millions  of  revenue.  Mr.  Adams  was  turned  out  for  his  extrava 
gance,  and  Locofoco  economy  substituted.  Mr.  Van  Buren  came  in  as  a  per 
sonal  embodiment  of  Locofoco  principles,  and  what  was  the  annual  expenditure 
during  his  four  years  ?  The  average,  instead  of  twelve  and  a  half,  was  twenty- 
eight  millions;  (in  one  year  the  expenditure  reached  thirty-seven  millions.) 
Twelve  and  a  half  millions  under  Mr.  Adams,  twenty-eight  millions  under  Mr. 
Van  Buren;  this  is  the  difference  between  Whig  and  Locofoco  policy.  With  a 
revenue  of  25  millions,  Mr.  Adams  paid  45  millions  of  debt.  With  a  revenue 
of  more*  than  30  millions,  Mr.  Van  Buren  paid  not  one  dollar  of  the  public  debt, 
but  increased  it,  in  effect,  thirty-one  millions;  the  expenditures  having  exceeded 
the  revenue  during  his  term  by  that  amount.  Mr.  Van  Buren  found  in  the  Trea 
sury  a  surplus  of  45  millions;  of  this,  28  millions  were  deposited  with  the  States, 
leaving  16  millions  of  available  revenue,  and  to  this  add  the  proceeds  of  the  sale 
of  the  Government  bank  stock,  85  millions,  making  a  surplus  of  24£  millions; 
the  whole  of  this,  with  all  the  revenues  of  the  Government,  was  expended  dur 
ing  Mr.  Van  Buren's  four  years,  and  a  large  debt  left  to  the  Whigs  upon  the  ac 
cession  of  General  Harrison  to  the  Presidency  in  1841. 

When  the  Whigs  came  into  power,  they  found  in  the  Treasury,  not  a  surplus 
of  45  millions,  as  did  Mr.  Van  Buren,  but  they  found,  on  the  contrary,  a  large 
debt,  and  the  revenue  run  down  to  less  than  half  the  amount  of  the  expendi 
tures.  In  1840,  the  net  revenue  was  but  $10,159,339.  When  the  Whigs  came 
in,  they  passed  the  Tariff  of  '42,  (that  tariff  law  which  we,  in  our  wisdom,  re 
pealed  last  winter,)  and  what  did  that  law  accomplish  ?  It  raised  the  net  revenue 
to  $25,758,406  in  1844 — it  restored  the  credit  of  the  nation — it  raised  up  and 
protected  the  national  industry,  and  made  the  nation  prosperous.  It  paid  off,  in 
four  years  of  its  operation,  (1842  inclusive,)  34  millions  of  the  public  debt,  and 
left,  in  1846,  a  balance  of  6  millions  in  the  Treasury;  and  raised  the  revenue 
from  12  to  27  millions  a  year. 

This  Whig  Administration  was  turned  out  by  frauds  and  deceptions  of 
the  grossest  character.  James  K.  Polk  came  in.  Locofoco  doctrine  was 
again  in  the  ascendant.  The  tariff  of  1842  was  repealed,  and  that  of  1846 
T  substituted,  little  better  than  the  compromise  bill  at  its  lowest  point  of  de 
pression  in  1840,  when  the  revenue  was  but  ten  millions.  Next  came 
annexation,  and  then,  as  was  predicted,  came  war,  with  all  its  unhappy 
and  disastrous  consequences.  Here  are  the  fruits  of  Locofoco  policy.  What 
is  the  condition  of  the  country  now  ?  It  is  worse  than  it  was  even  under 
the  ruinous  reign  of  Martin  Van  Buren,  whom  the  people  turned  out,  head  and 
heels.  Mr.  Van  Buren  spent  for  us  twenty-eight  millions  a  year;  and  how 
much  is  James  K.  Polk  spending  ?  God  only  knows.  Just  what  he  pleases  to 
ask  for — forty  or  fifty  millions  at  least.  We  have  given  him  men  and  given  him 
money — millions  upon  millions-— regiments  upon  regiments — treasury  notes. 


11 

loans,  all  he  asks,  and  as  fast  as  he  asks;  yet  his  friends  here  complain  daily  that 
the  President  is  "  not  sustained"  in  his  patriotic  purpose!"     What  have  we  re 
fused  him  ?     We  granted  him  ten  millions  of  dollars  and  fifty  thousand  volun 
teers,  who  promptly  tendered  their  services,  and  he  has  not  called  out  much 
more  than  half  of  them.     What  have  we  not  done?     And,  after  all,  what  has 
Mr.  Polk  done  ?     Has  he  prosecuted  this  war  as  he  ought  to  have  done  ?     No. 
He  had  authority  to  call  out  a  sufficient  force,  but  he  declined  to  do  it.     We  of 
fered  him  troops  enough,  but  he  left  them  behind.     And  now,  when  the  Mexi 
cans  have  entrenched  themselves,  have  strengthened  their  fortifications,  put  down 
their  factions,  and  are  united  as  one  man,  with   their  old  and  ablest  chieftain, 
Santa  Anna,  at  their  head — now,  after  eight  or  nine  months'   delay,  the  Presi 
dent  is  ready  to  go  forward  ;  he  is  bustling  about,  and  complaining  of  want  of 
means.     General  Gaines,  knowing  that  the  true  course  was  to  strike  quick  and 
heavy  blows,  promptly  called  to  the  field  all  the  forces  at  hand,  to  act  with  ener 
gy,  before  the  enemy  had  time  to  harmonize  and  concentrate  their  strength,  and 
thus  to  put  an  end  to  the  war  at  once ;  and,  for  doing  this,  he  has  been  court- 
martialled  by  the  President,  and  removed  from  his  command  in  the  South.    And 
what  did  the  President  do  ?     Instead  of  striking  vigorously  at  the  heart  of  Mexi 
co,  he  is  found  invading  her  remote  and  defenceless  frontiers,  in  organizing  civil 
governments,  and  in  securing  territory  to  be  held  as  indemnity  for  the  expenses 
of  the  war,  as  "  pay  for  heating  the  poker."     By  taking  possession  of  her  fron 
tier  provinces,  the  President  has   essentially  strengthened  Mexico,  by  relieving 
her  from  the  necessity  of  keeping  up  troops  on  her  frontiers  to  hold  in  check  the 
fierce  and  warlike  savages  of  the  North,  who  were  continually  making  hostile 
incursions,  and  robbing  and  murdering  her  people.     These   Indians   are  now 
held  in  check  by  our  troops,  and  Mexico  has  withdrawn  hers  to  strengthen  her 
defences  at  home.     The  whole  of  these  movements  show  conclusively  that  the 
purpose  and  policy  of  the  President,  in  the  commencement  and  prosecution  of 
this  war,  has  been  the  acquisition  of  territory ;  and,  although  he  may  deny  it  in 
his  message,  who  that  looks  to  his  acts  can  believe  him  ?     Now,  I  submit  to  my 
friends  in  the  South,  in  all  kindness,  I  ask  them,  ought  they  not  to  be  satisfied  ? 
Have  we  not  given  them  Florida  at  a  cost  of  forty  millions?  Have  we  not  pur 
chased  for  them  Louisiana,  which  has  given  them  four  or  five  States  ;  and  ha^e  we 
not  recently  annexed  Texas,  which  will  give  them  four  or  five  more?     All  these 
vast  territories  have  been  acquired  partly  by  the  blood  and  treasure  of  the  North, 
and  have  all  been  surrendered  to  the  South ;  and  yet  it  seems  that  southern  men 
are  not  satisfied  !     Is  this  reasonable  ;  is  it  right  ?    When  we  claimed  the  whole 
of  Oregon  for  the  formation  of  free  States,  by  a  title  declared  by  the  President  to 
be  "  clear  and  unquestionable,"  yet  nearly  one  half  of  it  was  given  up  by  him. 
I  tell  my  friends  in  the  South,  that  they  had  better  stop  in  their  course  of  acqui 
sition,  especially  by  conquest.     If  they  proceed,  they  will  establish  a  geograph 
ical  line  as  a  party  line  ;  and  that  will  in  the  end  destroy  this  Union.     Suppose 
parties  are  divided  by  geographical  lines,  with  northern  candidates  and  southern 
candidates  for  the  Presidential  offices.     Suppose  the   North   should  triumph  in 
the  struggle  ;  will  the  South  submit  ?    We  are  told  they  will  not ;  that  they  will- 
nullify  and  set  up  a  government  of  their  own.   But  in  a  different  result  the  North 
might  do  the  same  thing.     These  are  fearful  consequences  ;  may  they  not  follow 
the  further  acquisition  of  territory  by  conquest?  These  dangers  may  be  remote  ; 
I  trust  they  may  never  occur — that  wisdom  and  moderation  may  forever  avert 
them  from  our  beloved  country — but  I  fear  nothing  can  stop  them  (if  unrestricted 
territory  is  acquired  by  conquest)  from  swallowing  up  in  the  end  all  that  is  pre 
cious  in  our  present  happy  Union  and  free  institutions.     Such  are  some  of  the 


12 

sad  consequences  which  I  fear  will  flow  from  this  war,  if  its  original  purposes 
and  objects  be  carried  out. 

IpThis  war  which  is  to  be  prosecuted  at  the  sacrifice  of  all  the  other  great  interests 
of  our  country  ;  for  which  internal  improvements  are  to  be  arrested;  private 
claims  vetoed  and  postponed  ;  in  short,  we  are  loldby  the  President  in  his  Mes 
sage,  that  no  appropriations  that  are  not  absolutely  indispensable,  are  to  be  made 
while  this  war  lasts.  What  would  the  money,  already  expended  in  killing  those 
miserable  Mexicans,  have  done  for  the  improvement  of  our  country  ?  It  would 
have  improved  all  our  harbors,  cleared  out  our  rivers,  and  saved  millions  of 
property  and  hundreds  of  lives,  lost  for  want  of  them  ;  it  would  complete 
a  railroad  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  mouth  of  the  Oregon;  it  would  have 
conferred  countless  blessings  and  benefits  upon  our  beloved  country  in  a  thou 
sand  forms;  but  instead  of  this,  what  has  it  done,  and  what  will  it  do?  It 
has  destroyed  thousands  of  lives,  the  lives  of  many  of  our  best  men,  by 
sickness  and  the  sword — it  has  made  hundreds  of  widows  and  orphans — it 
will  destroy  the  health  as  well  as  the  habits  of  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  our  best  citizens — it  will  build  up  an  enormous  standing  army  and  pen 
sion  list  to  rest  like  an  incubus  upon  the  people  for  a  generation  to  come,  and 
perhaps  in  the  end  dissolve  this  Union,  and  with  it  destroy  the  last,  best  hope  of 
liberty  on  earth  ;  and  for  what?  To  gratify  the  lust  of  power  and  the  lust  of 
land — the  ravenous  appetite  of  James  K.  Polk,  to  acquire  territory  not  his  own, 
and  signalize  his  Administration  by  the  glories  of  war — war  !  glorious  war  !  upon 
a  weak,  distracted,  and  unhappy  sister  Republic — and  what  for  ?  She  owed  us 
a  debt  of  some  two  or  three  millions,  which  she  was  too  poor  to  pay.  She  ac 
knowledged  the  debt,  and  promised  to  pay  it  as  soon  as  she  could.  Yet  this  is 
made  by  the  President  in  his  Message,  the  great  and  leading  cause  of  war — how 
magnanimous  ;  how  glorious  !  We  took  Texas — she  acquiesced.  -  Not  satisfied, 
Mr.  Polk  determines  to  have  California.  He  sends  Mr.  Slidell  to  purchase  it — 
they  offer  to  treat  with  him  as  a  commissioner,  but  not  as  a  minister — which 
they  said  implied  relations  of  amity  and  friendship  which  did  not  exist.  Mr. 
Polk  would  not  yield  the  point,  or  change  the  name  from  minister  to  commis 
sioner,  which,  if  done,  might  have  prevented  this  war  with  all  its  horrors  ;  but 
rather  than  yield  this  point  of  etiquette,  he  ordered  Mr.  Slidell  home,  and  imme 
diately,  and  without  consulting  Congress  then  in  session,  ordered  Gen.  Taylor  to 
march  to  the  Rio  Grande,  blockaded  that  river,  and  brought  on  the  war.  Up  to 
this  time  what  had  Mexico  done?  Had  she  invaded  Texas  since  its  annexation  ? 
No.  Had  she  committed  any  act  of  hostility?  None — none  whatever.  None  is 
pretended  ;  yet  we  are  to  exterminate  Mexico  and  revel  in  the  Halls  of  the  Mon- 
tezumas,  and  prosecute  this  Executive  war  at  an  expense  of  millions  of  money, 
and  oceans  of  blood  — is  it  right ! — before  God  and  man,  is  it  right  ? 

And,  to  enable  the  President  to  prosecute  this  glorious  war,  he  has  sent  us  a 
message,  which  has  just  been  received  and  read  by  the  clerk,  recommending  the 
imposition  of  duties  en  tea  and  coffee.  In  his  message  at  the  commencement  of 
the  session,  he  spoke  equivocally  on  this  point ;  but,  as  the  revenue  has  fallen 
greatly  short:  the  last  quarter,  up  to  the  first  of  January,  having  yielded  only  $3, 
645,000;  less  than  it  has  been  for  many  years  past,  he  has  at  length  come  out  and 
assumed  the  responsibility  of  avowing  himself  in  favor  of  a  tax  on  tea  and  coffee, 
as  a  revenue  measure,;  last  session  the  doctrine  of  the  Secretary,  and  of  the  Admin 
istration,  was  that  the  reduction  of  duties  increased  the  revenue  ;  but  now,  finding 
a  plentiful  lack  of  revenue,  they  propose  to  do — what  ?  Reduce  the  duties  still 
further?  Not  at  all.  Hunger  is  very  apt  to  bring  people  to  their  senses.  And 
now  they  have  at  last  admitted  the  truth  of  the  Whig  doctrine,  that  the  way  to 


13 

\ 

get  an  increase  of  revenue  is  to  increase  the  duties.  This  is  quite  new  as  a 
Democratic  doctrine.  Mr.  Polk  did  not  use  to  think  so.  At  one  time  he  was 
for  destroying  the  whole  system  of  internal  improvements,  because  it  furnished 
"  a  sponge,"  to  absorb  the  surplus,  and  keep  up  a  high  tariff. 

But  now  he  has  found  out  another  sponge,  his  extravagance  and  war  furnish 
a  sponge  large  enough  to  absorb  all  the  revenue,  and  even  as  much  more.  Now, 
when  he  finds  the  revenue  insufficient — when  he  discovers  that  the  tariff  is  too 
low — having  taken  the  duties  off  luxuries,  he  proposes  to  tax  tea  and  coffee.. 
That  is  now  Democratic  doctrine.  The  tariff  of '46  takes  duties  off  of  the  luxu 
ries  of  the  rich,  and,  to  make  up,  it  is  proposed  to  tax  the  necessaries  of  the 
poor;  the  tariff  of  '42  imposed  high  duties  on  luxuries,  and  no  duties  at  all 
on  tea  and  coffee. 

(Mr.  COBB  here  inquired  what  duties  on  luxuries  had  been  reduced  by  the 
tariff  of  1840?) 

Mr.  S.  said,  the  list  was  long,  he  could  not  recollect  them  all,  but  since  he 
was  called  on,  he  would  give  the  gentleman  a  few,  and  he  would  first  mention 
brandy,  and  spirits  distilled  fiom  grain.  The  duty  on  these,  under  the  tariff  of 
'42,  was  162  per  cent.;  which  Mr.  Polk,  and  his  omniscient  Secretary,  reduced, 
by  the  tariff  of  '46  sixty-two  per  cent.  Under  the  tariff  of  '42,  the  revenue 
derived  from  brandy  and  distilled  spirits  was  $1,623,000  on  the  importations  of 
1845.  Under  the  tariff  of '46,  the  duties  on  the  same  would  be  but  $1,191,000; 
showing  a  loss  of  revenue  on  brandy  and  distilled  spirits  alone  of  $432,000,  and 
this  loss  is  now  to  be  made  up  by  a  duty  on  tea  and  coffee  ;  and  this  is  Demo 
cratic  policy — to  take  duties  off  of  the  rich  man's  brandy,  Irish  whiskey,  and 
Holland  gin,  and  put  them  on  the  poor  man's  tea  and  coffee  !  If  you  want  more 
money  for  your  war,  go  back  and  restore  these  duties  on  brandies  and  foreign 
spirits,  and  other  luxuries,  and  then  talk  about  taxing  the  necessaries  of  life. 

(Mr.  COBB  here  inquired  whether  the  tariff  of  1846  had  not  raised  the  price 
of  American  grain  ?) 

Mr.  S.  said,  after  the  Yankee  fashion,  he  would  answer  the  gentleman's  ques 
tion  by  asking  him  another :  Did  the  tariff  of  '46  produce  the  potato-rot  in 
Ireland?  Did  it  blight  all  the  wheat  crops  of  Europe,  and  produce  a  super 
abundant  crop  here  ?  If  it  did,  then  the  gentleman's  notion  was  right,  but  not 
otherwise.  He  would  tell  the  gentleman,  that  the  tariff  of  '46  had  about  as 
much  to  do  with  the  price  of  grain,  as  it  had  with  the  rising  and  setting  of  the 
sun — no  more. 

'  Mr.  S.  supposed  the  gentleman  had  been  studying  Mr.  Walker's  late  pro 
found  tariff  tables,  in  which  he  stated  that  the  price  of  grain  in  the  United  States 
had  increased,  from  the  1st  of  July  to  the  first  of  December  last,  115  millions 
of  dollars,  which  he  attributed  to  the  tariff  of  '46,  although  it  all  took  place  un 
der  the  tariff  of  '42,  that  of  '46  not  having  then  commenced  its  operation.  But, 
I  repeat,  all  his  boasting  about  the  increase  of  prices  goes  on  the  presumption 
that  the  tariff  of  '46  produced  the  potato-rot  in  Ireland,  short  crops  abroad,  and 
great  crops  at  home. 

Mr.  COBB  next  inquired,  what  had  raised  the  price  of  cotton  ? 
Mr.  S.  Was  it  the  tariff  of  '46  ?  What  had  it  to  do  with  cotton  ?  He  would 
tell  the  gentleman  it  was  a  short  crop.  The  last  crop  of  cotton,  he  understood, 
had  fallen  short  fully  one-third  ;  while  the  demand  was  increasing,  at  home  and 
abroad,  a  diminished  supply,  and  an  increased  demand,  had,  as  it  always  would, 
increased  the  price  of  cotton  as  of  every  thing  else. 

But,  since  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  had  called  his  attention  to  cotton,  he 


14 

\vould  remind  the  gentleman  of  what  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Walker, 
had  said  on  this  subject.     He  said  we  must  take  more  British  goods,  or,  if  we 
did  not,  "  she  would  have  to  pay  us  specie  for  our  bread  stuffs,  and,  not  having 
it  to  spare,  she  will  bring  down  the  price  of  our  cotton."     This  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Secretary.     Now,  sir,  look  at  the  facts.     In  this  same  report  Mr.  Walker 
states  that,  in   1845,  we  took  $45,600,000  worth  of  British  goods,  while  she 
took  but  $154,236  worth  of  our  breadstuff*,  (35,355  barrels  of  flour,  2,010  bush 
els  of  wheat,  and  one  barrel  of  corn  meal ;)  yet  we  are  told  officially  that  we 
must  take  more  than  forty-five  millions  of  British  goods,  or  she  will  have  to  pay 
us  specie  ($154,000)  for  our  breadstuffs,  and,  not  having  it  to  spare,  will  reduce 
the  price  of  **  our  cotton!!"     Why,  sir,  it  is  mathematically  true,  that,  if  one- 
tenth  part  of  the  value  of  British  goods  consists  of  the  "  breadstuffs"  consumed 
by  the  labor  employed  in  the  production  of  the   raw  materials,  and  afterwards  in 
converting  them  into  goods,  then  we  imported  in  1845,  30  times  as  much  British 
breadstuffs  in  the  form  of  goods  as  she  took  from  us  in  its  raw  condition  ;  for  in 
stance,  in  1845  we  imported  $45,600,000  worth  of  her  goods,  one-tenth  of  which 
is  $4,560,000,  while  she  took  but  $154,236  worth  of  our  breadstuffs,  being 
about  one-thirtieth  part.     Assuming  that  one-tenth  of  the  value  of  goods  consists 
of  breadstuffs,  (and  he  believed  this  was  short  of  the  real  amount,)  and  this  result 
is   undeniable.      Yet   gentlemen   are   constantly   boasting   of    the    importance 
of    the   English   markets   for   American   breadstuffs  ;    and   this,    in   fact,    con 
stituted  the  great  topic  of  both  the  late  message  and  Treasury  report.     And 
he  would  here  state  a  fact  that  would  astonish  the  American  people,  and  especi 
ally  the  farmers  of  this  country.     It  was  this — that  for  the  last  twenty-five  years, 
from  1821  to  1846,  while  we  imported  from  forty  to  fifty  millions  of  dollars'  worth 
of  goods  from   Great  Britain  per  annum,  she  took  but  one  million  of  dollars 
worth  of  all  the  provisions  and  breadstuffs  of  this  country.     This  fact  was  es 
tablished  by  a  table  which  lie  had  made  from  the  official  reports  on  commerce 
and  navigation,  from  their  commencement,  in  1821,  down  to  this  time,  which 
he  had  had  carefully  revised  and  corrected  by  the  librarian  of  this   House,  and 
which  he  intended  to  append  to  his   speech.     But  the  gentleman's  interruption 
had  withdrawn  his  attention  from  the  subject  he  was  discussing.     When  inter 
rupted,  he  was  enumerating  some  of  the  luxuries  on  which  the  duties  had  been 
reduced  by  the  tariff  of  '46 ;  he  had  mentioned  brandy  and  spirits.     The  next 
item,  though  small,  served  to  show  the  spirit  and  policy  of  that  law  ;  he  referred 
to  cards.     The  duty  on  visiting  cards  had  been  reduced  from  80   to   30  per 
cent.,  and  on  playing  cards   from  257   to   30  per  cent.      They  take   seven-, 
eighths  of  the  tax  off  playing  cards,  and  put  it  on  tea  and  coffee;   and  this 
was  Democratic  policy,   the  policy  of  the  tariff  of  '46.     The  duties  by  this 
act  had  been   reduced   on   crown  and  cut   glass,    chandeliers,    &c.,   used   by 
the  rich,  fiom  90  to  30  per  cent.  ;  on  pimento,  cloves,  cassia,  dates,  &c.,  from 
60  and  80  down  to  40  per  cent.  ;   on  ready-made  clothing,  from  50  to  30  ;   on 
silk  hats  and  shoes,  from  50  to  30.     The  duties  on  all  these  luxuries,  and  many 
others,  consumed  by  the  rich,  are  thus  reduced,  in  most  instances,  more  than  one- 
half;   and  then  the  Secretary  and  President  turn  round  and  ask  us  to  tax  tea  and 
coffee.     No,  sir,  let  them  restore  and  increase  the  duties  on  luxuries,  and  then, 
if  they  have  not  revenue  enough,  let  them  talk  about  a  duty  on  tea  and  coffee. 
Let  them  restore  the  three-and-a-half  millions  of  revenue  they  have  lost  by  the 
reduction  of  the  duties  on  cotton  goods  ;  the  two  millions  on  iron  and  its  manu 
factures  ;  the  million  and  a  half  they  have  lost  on  sugar ;   the  million  on  wool 
lens,  and  the  million  and  a  half  on   silk  goods.     Let  them  restore  these  protec 
tive  and  revenue  duties — restore  the  nine  and  a  half  millions  taken  of  these  five 


15 

articles.  Let  them  restore  the  $432,000  taken  off  brandy  and  spirits.  Let 
them  do  this,  and  then  talk  to  us  about  a  duty  on  tea  and  coffee.  He  asserted 
that,  with  some  modification,  the  tariff  of  '42  could  be  made  to  yield  forty  mil 
lions,  not  only  without  prejudice,  but  with  positive  benefit  and  advantage  to  the 
country;  not  by  doubling  the  duties,  as  at  the  commencement  of  the  last  war, 
but  simply  by  increasing  the  duties  on  luxuries,  and  some  others,  for  revenue 
and  protection,  extending  them  to  some  of  the  articles  made  free  by  the  tariff  of 
'42,  and  making  them  specific.  Such  a  tariff,  while  it  would  give  ample  revenue 
and  protection,  would  truly  "  cover  the  country  with  benefits  and  blessings," 
restore  prosperity  to  every  branch  of  the  national  industry,  put  the  country  upon 
its  own  vast  and  undeveloped  resources,  and  give  this  Administration  abundant 
means  to  sustain  the  public  credit  at  this  fearful  crisis  in  our  affairs.  This 
was  Whig  policy  ;  this  was  the  measure  the  Whigs  would  adopt  if  they  had  the 
power,  instead  of  this  miserable  and  pitiful  attempt  to  put  a  duty  on  tea  and 
coffee — a  measure  alike  improper,  unnecessary,  and  inadequate.  Sir,  restore 
the  Whigs  to  power  to-morrow,  and,  as  in  1842,  they  would  soon  lift  up  this 
down-trodden  and  prostrate  country.  Do  this,  and  peace  and  prosperity  would 
be  soon  restored.  Do  this,  and— (Here  the  hour  expired,  and  Mr.  S.  resumed 
his  seat.)  ^ 

1 


u      *i 

Q-, 


012   feb 


M 


16 

O)        -*CO 


o  —  i  1->—  • 


g|  § 

05         CO 


5   I 


G$l>  CJ          — lO  CO 

***  '  '  S  '  S2w 


o 
Ot 


i-T^c^f  co"  (jfoo"  ccT 

r- 1        CO  (7^ 


CO  QO^C^G^iOiO'* 

<?J  00  i—  1  CJ  1O  C5  ^*  >—  1 

•^  c^i—  ico-H'O 


COOi—  iCOCO—<OOOai(>}O 
TfOOO  ^*i—  i  O 

co 


coo 
eo" 


o      t^  •>*  <x>  »o  <M  co 

i-i      -^cooo-rrcoas 

CO          «*  CO  t^  CO  •<*  t-i  - 


Ol  O5  iO  (M  •*  CO  i-(  "*  **  — i  "H  O5  "*  I-H  •*  O  I-  CO  »O  t^  O  CO  CM 

00  CO  iO  -^  CO  i— !  t-  t^  O5  O  O»  CO  CO  •*  CO  1-1  (7J  -^  CO  00  i-*  CO  00 

^  t-^  ^5.00  r-^CO^CO  00>r-Hi^a^CO  i-^OO  CO  —^  U^CO^CO^-^t^OO^^CO^ 

sco"  i  oTco"oo''co>cr-^L'r-^'-^ari-rco''irr— T  i  9ttot?tnqr 


•<5t1—i         OJ  i—  (  CO  UO  O5  ^  i—  ( 


COCOOOJ         t^-i—  I 


o  ^ 


co 


i-»  TT  OJ  UO  00  CO  00  t-  00  iO  CO  O  00  I-H 


irt  ffS  00  •f  iO  CO 
eft^irt'w'l-^ 


o 

CO 


•^•^coc^as'O'-tuoaoooco 


o  o  o  >o  t-H  I-H  ^H 


00  t-CO  GO^t- 
i— I  T— I  00  CO  00  C— 

i-HCO  t-l 


Si 
sf 


Is 


^  6  S 


rf 


CJGN'C^COCOCOCOCOCOCOrOCOCO'*^-*'*'^'* 
OOOO'X)OOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOOOaOOOOOOOGOOOCO 


